I-  ^^ 


1416 
H8 


UC-NRLF 


$B    5T3    TIS 


iUL  24  tq^ 


SOME  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE   CONDUCT   OF  OUR 
FOREIGN  RELATIONS 

By  the   honorable  CHARLES   E.    HUGHES 


[Reprinted  from  the  American  Journal  of  International  Law 
Vol.  XVI,  Number  3,  July,  1922] 


'% 


h<6 


SOME  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  CONDUCT  OF  OUR  FOREIGN 

RELATIONS  ^ 

By  the  Honorable  Charles  E.  Hughes 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States 

I  desire  to  take  this  opportunity  to  present  some  observations  on  the  con- 
duct of  our  foreign  relations,  not  to  define  particular  poUcies,  but  to  consider 
method  and  control. 

Recent  developments  abroad  have  marked  the  passing  of  the  old  diplo- 
macy and  the  introduction  of  more  direct  and  flexible  methods  responsive  to 
democratic  sentiment.  Peace-loving  democracies  have  not  been  willing  to 
rest  content  with  traditions  and  practices  which  failed  to  avert  the  great 
catastrophe  of  the  world  war.  Public  criticism  in  some  instances  overshot 
the  mark  and  becoming  emotional  enjoyed  the  luxury  of  a  bitter  and  indis- 
criminate condemnation.  The  most  skilled  diplomats  of  Europe  were 
charged  with  having  become  "enmeshed  in  formulae  and  the  jargon  of  diplo- 
macy"; with  having  "ceased  to  be  conscious  of  pregnant  realities".  More 
potent  than  the  critics  were  the  exigencies  due  to  the  war^hich  required  the 
constant  contact  and  direct  interchanges  of  respo:88BBJppc^rs.  The  after- 
math of  problems  has  made  necessary  the  frequent  ^m  of  similar  methods 
permitting  concert,  flexibility,  more  frequent  infornifpij^ercourse,  and  de- 
cisions which,  if  not  immediate,  are  relatively  speedy.     The  international 

*  conference  attests  the  new  effort  to  achieve  the  necessary  adaptation  to  new 
demands.  An  eminent  chronicler  of  European  conferences  tells  us  that  he 
has  attended  over  five  hundred  international  meetings  since  1914.  There 
has  been  a  corresponding  stirring  in  foreign  offices,  modifications  of  the  old 
technique  and  a  new  sense  of  responsibility  to  peoples. 

It  would  be  a  shallow  critic  who  would  associate  the  United  States  with 

,  either  the  aims,  the  methods  or  the  mistakes  of  the  traditional  diplomacy  of 
Europe.  To  her  "primary  interests",  as  Washington  said,  we  had  at  best 
"a  very  remote  relation".  We  have  had  no  part  in  the  intrigues  to  main- 
tain balance  of  power  in  Europe  and  no  traditions  of  diplomatic  caste.  From 
the  outset — from  the  first  efforts  of  Benjamin  Franklin — American  diplomacy 
has  deemed  itself  accountable  to  public  opinion  and  has  enjoyed  the  reputa- 
tion of  being  candid  and  direct.  It  has  opposed  circumlocution  and  unneces- 
sary ceremonial.     Its  treaties  have  been  open  to  the  world.     Indeed,  instead 

1  Address  at  the  Commencement  of  the  University  of  Michigan,  at  Ann  Arbor,  on 
Monday  morning,  June  19,  1922. 

365 


(;75850 


366  THE   AMERICAN   JOURNAL   OF   INTERNATIONAL   LAW 

of  being  burdened  by  the  artificialities,  reticences  and  intriguing  devices  of 
an  organization  essentially  aristocratic,  instead  of  holding  itself  aloof  from 
the  current  influences  of  politics,  the  organization  of  our  instrumentalities  of 

"foreign  intercourse  has  rather  suffered  from  too  much  regard  for  politicians 
and  too  little  attention  to  the  necessity  for  special  aptitude  and  training. 
But,  while  we  have  thus  been  immune  from  most  of  the  destructive  criticism 
visited  upon  old  world  methods,  we  also  feel  the  pressure  of  a  heightened 
demand  for  popular  control,  and  it  is  essential  that  we  should  carefully  con- 
sider the  relation  of  public  opinion  to  the  conduct  of  our  foreign  relations,  its 
proper  aims,  the  special  dangers  in  this  field  if  public  opinion  is  unintelligent 
or  misdirected,  and  the  conditions  of  the  wholesome  exercise  of  its  authority. 
In  the  sphere  of  international  action,  the  people  have  peculiar  obligations  as 
well  as  power,  and  education  for  citizenship  implies  a  just  appreciation  of 
civic  responsibility  when  peoples  are  dealing  with  each  other  as  peoples  and 
not  merely  determining  domestic  policy  and  settling  internal  disputes. 

President  Lowell  has  reminded  us  that,  in  asserting  the  final  control  of 
public  opinion  in  popular  government,  the  opinion  to  which  we  refer  must  be 
"pubUc"  and  must  really  be  "opinion".  It  imports  the  conviction  of  the 
people  as  a  whole  that  the  prevailing  view  expressed  in  the  manner  appro- 
priate to  our  institutions  should  be  carried  out.  It  embraces  deep-seated 
convictions  due  to  the  influence  of  tradition,  authority  or  suggestion.  In 
new  conditions,  where  familiar  standards  are  not  involved,  it  is  developed  in 
a  rational  process  by  consideration  of  what  are  supposed  to  be  the  facts  of  the 
particular  case. 

It  becomes  at  on^Papparent  how  difficult  it  is  to  develop  true  public 
opinion  in  relation  tcB|atters  of  foreign  policy.  There  are,  of  course,  certain 
viewpoints  of  the  An^ican  people  which  are  readily  recognized,  as  they  rep- 
resent accepted  postulates  formulated  and  approved  by  generations  of  Ameri- 
can statesmen  and  which  could  be  changed  only  by  a  revolution  of  opinion. 
But  in  a  host  of  matters,  indeed  in  most  cases,  there  is  no  such  criterion. 
There  are  complicated  states  of  fact  which  cannot  be  understood  without  an 
intimate  knowledge  of  historical  background  and  a  painstaking  and  discrimi- 
nating analysis  of  material.  There  are  situations  of  controlling  importance 
which  are  wholly  unknown  to  the  general  public,  and  which  cannot  be  appre- 

•  ciated  without  the  special  information  available  only  to  officers  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. The  people  cannot  judge  wisely  without  being  informed,  and  the 
problem  is  how  to  inform  them.  Lack  of  accurate  information  does  not 
imply  any  check  upon  the  dissemination  of  what  passes  for  fact  or  the  with- 
holding of  comment  or  criticism  however  mistaken  in  its  assumptions.  The 
multiplied  facilities  of  communication  are  always  in  use,  and  the  processes  of 
conjecture  and  suspicion  go  on  uninterruptedly.  In  dealing  with  the  prob- 
lem of  developing  sound  opinion,  the  fundamental  consideration  must 
always  be  that  misinformation  is  the  public's  worst  enemy,  more  potent  for 
evil  than  all  the  conspiracies  that  are  commonly  feared. 


SOME  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  CONDUCT  OF  OUR  FOREIGN  RELATIONS   367 

Moreover,  the  difficulty  of  maintaining  a  true  perspective  and  a  distinc-  • 
tively  American  opinion  in  the  field  of  foreign  affairs  is  greatly  increased  by 
the  natural  and  persistent  efforts  of  numerous  groups  to  bend  American  * 
policy  to  the  interest  of  particular  peoples  to  whom  tjiey  are  attached 
by  ties  of  kinship  and  sentiment.  The  conflicts  of  opinion  and  interest  in 
the  old  world  are  reproduced  on  our  own  soil.  Then  there  are  the  various 
sorts  of  propaganda  by  which  organized  minorities  and  special  interests  seek 
to  maintain  a  pervasive  influence. 

Whatever  the  advantages  of  our  governmental  arrangements — and  I 
should  be  the  last  to  under-estimate  them — I  think  it  should  be  candidly 
admitted  that  they  have  the  effect  of  kmiting  the  opportunities  for  the  re-  • 
sponsible  discussion  which  aids  in  the  understanding  of  foreign  policy.  The 
conduct  of  foreign  relations  pertains,xo  the  executive  power,  and  the  execu- 
tive power  of  the  Nation  is  vested  in  the  President,  subject  to  the  exceptions 
and  qualifications  expressed  in  the  Constitution.  Practice  under  the  Con- 
stitution has  abundantly  confirmed  the  initiative  of  the  President  in  the 
formulation  of  foreign  policy.  • 

The  wisdom  of  this  disposition  of  power  has  been  fully  demonstrated,  for 
in  view  of  the  nature  of  the  task,  the  delicacy  of  the  negotiations  involved,  the 
necessity  for  promptness,  flexibility  and  unity  of  control,  this  authority  ' 
could  not  well  be  lodged  elsewhere.     But  the  separateness  of  the  executive 
power  under  our  system,  while  it  has  advantages  which  have  been  deemed  to 
be  of  controlling  importance,  deprives  the  Executive  of  the  opportunities, 
open  to  parliamentary  leaders,  of  participation  in  parliamentary  debates. , 
Official  communications  are  made  by  the  President  in  the  discharge  of  his 
constitutional  duty.     The  Department  of  State,  which  is  the  instrumentality 
of  the  Executive  in  connection  with  foreign  affairs,  makes  its  public  an- 
nouncements.    The  Secretary  of  State  appears  before  committees  from  time 
to  time  and  gives  the  information  which  is  asked.     But  there  is  lacking  thd_ 
direct  personal  relation  to  the  discussions  of  the  Senate  when  foreign  affairsT  , 
are  under  consideration.     The  Secretary  of  State,  acting  for  the  President,\ 
may  negotiate  an  important  treaty,  but  he  has  no  opportunity  to  explain  or 
defend  it  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  when  its  provisions  are  under  debate.   • 
The  knowledge  which  is  at  his  command  is  communicated  in  formal  writing 
or  merely  to  those  members  who  sit  upon  the  appropriate  committee.     The 
advantage  of  oral  explication  and  of  meeting  each  exigency  as  it  arises  in  the 
course  of  discussion  and  thus  of  aiding  in  the  formation  of  public  opinion  in 
the  manner  best  adapted  to  that  purpose  is  not  open  to  him.     There  are 
numerous  situations  in  which  an  opportunity  for  the  Executive  through  his 
Department  Chiefs  to  explain  matters  of  policy  would  be  of  the  greatest  aid. 
in  securing  an  inteUigent  judgment.     As  President  Taft  said, "Time  and\_ 
time  again  debates  have  arisen  in  each  House  upon  issues  which  the  inf  orma-  j 
tion  of  a  particular  Department  Head  would  have  enabled  him,  if  present,  to  » 
end  at  once  by  a  simple  explanation  or  statement".     This  is  especially  true 


368  THE    AMERICAN   JOURNAL    OF   INTERNATIONAL   LAW 

in  relation  to  foreign  affairs  where  the  Department  concerned  has  sources  of 
information  which  generally  are  not  available  to  others. 

I  should  not  favor  a  change  in  the  distribution  of  power  or  any  modification 
of  practice  which  would  encourage  the  notion  that  the  Executive  is  responsi- 
ble to  the  legislative  branch  of  the  Government  in  matters  which  under  the 
Constitution  are  exclusively  of  executive  concern.  I  should  also  deplore  any 
method  so  contrived  as  to  facilitate  antagonism  between  the  executive  de- 
partment and  legislative  leaders  or  which  would  merely  provide  opportunities 
for  the  censorious.  But  speaking  in  my  private  capacity  and  expressing  only 
a  personal  opinion,  I  do  believe  in  multiplying  the  facilities  for  appropriate 
/jooperation  between  responsible  leaders,  who  understand  their  respective 
functions,  in  a  manner  suited  to  the  full  discussion  of  great  international 
questions  when  these  fall  within  the  constitutional  competency  of  the  Senate. 
To  enable  Cabinet  officers  to  vote  in  either  House  of  Congress  would  require 
a  constitutional  amendment  and  I  should  not  favor  it,  but  it  is  quite  consist- 
ent with  our  system  that  the  Head  of  a  Department  should  have  the  oppor- 
tunity personally  to  be  heard  where  important  departmei;tal  measures  and 
policies  are  under  consideration.  Indeed,  the  propriety  of  this  method  of 
promoting  a  better  understanding  was  recognized  at  the  outset,  and  instead 
of  being  foreign  to  our  system  it  found  for  a  time  a  place  in  our  original  pro- 
cedure. You  will  remember  that  the  long  continued  abstention  from  such 
appearances  followed  the  refusal  of  Congress  in  1790  to  hear  Hamilton  when 
he  desired  to  make  in  person  his  Report  on  the  Public  Credit.  Mischiefs 
will  not  be  cured  by  methods  which  make  misapprehension  easy.  Every 
facility  should  be  provided,  consistent  with  our  system,  which  will  aid  in 
avoiding  misconstruction,  allaying  suspicion  and  preventing  unj  ust  aspersions . 
The  remedy  for  misunderstanding  is  explication  and  debate  and  the  oppor- 
tunity for  thus  informing  the  public  judgment  in  a  responsible  manner  should 
not  be  curtailed  by  any  unnecessary  artificiality  of  method, 
f  The  paramount  importance  of  contact  with  the  Press  is  fully  recognized, 
but  in  the  nature  of  things,  this  contact  for  the  most  part  must  be  informal. 
Occasional  public  announcements  are  expected,  but  the  representatives  of 
the  press  desire  to  write  in  their  own  way  and  to  obtain  material  by  their  own 
inquiries.  What  is  desired  is  not  control  of  news  but  accurate  information. 
To  meet  this  demand,  the  President  himself  meets  the  correspondents  twice 
a  week  and  Department  Heads  still  more  frequently.  The  Secretary  of  State 
has  two  press  conferences  each  working  day  at  which  either  the  Secretary  or 
the  Under  Secretary  is  present.  The  officers  are  not  quoted,  but  there  is 
frank  disclosure  of  facts  and  aims  within  the  widest  possible  limits.  There 
is  thus  the  most  direct  contact  with  those  who  are  the  principal  purveyors  of 
information  and  the  chief  educators  of  the  public.  This  is  our  substitute  for 
parliamentary  interpellation.  It  is  in  this  manner  that,  in  substance,  account 
is  rendered  to  the  final  authority. 

But  open  diplomacy  must  still  be  diplomacy,  and  it  cannot  be  open  at  the 


SOME  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  CONDUCT  OF  OUR  FOREIGN  RELATIONS   369 

cost  of  losing  its  essential  character  and  of  frustrating  its  proper  purposes. 
By  diplomacy,  I  mean  the  art  of  conducting  negotiations  with  foreign  Powers, 
and  when  we  refer,  with  suitable  discrimination,  to  open  diplomacy,  we  have 
in  mind  the  appropriate  publication  of  international  engagements,  and,  with 
respect  to  negotiations,  the  absence  of  intrigue,  the  avoidance  of  unnecessary 
secrecy,  candor  and  directness.  The  diplomacy  of  the  United  States  has 
been,  and  is,  open  diplomacy. 

The  management  of  negotiations  with  foreign  Powers,  however,  has  its  es- 
sential conditions  which  relate  (1)  to  the  interest  of  one's  own  State;  (2)  to 
the  requirements  of  honorable  intercourse  between  States;  and  (3)  to  the 
maintenance  of  international  good  will.  These  conditions  impose  a  measure 
of  reticence  in  the  course  of  negotiations,  with  which  the  most  high-minded 
negotiators  cannot  afford  to  dispense.  Thus  Washington,  maintaining  the 
right  of  the  President  to  refuse  information  with  respect  to  pending  negotia- 
tions when  he  deems  its  disclosure  incompatible  with  the  public  interest,  said : 

The  nature  of  foreign  negotiations  requires  caution,  and  their  success 
must  often  depend  on  secrecy;  and  often  when  brought  to  a  conclusion 
a  full  disclosure  of  all  the  measures,  demands,  or  eventual  concessions 
which  may  have  been  proposed  or  contemplated  would  be  extremely 
impolitic;  for  this  might  have  a  pernicious  influence  on  future  negotia- 
tions, or  produce  immediate  inconvenience,  perhaps  danger  and  mis- 
chief in  relation  to  other  powers. 

Even  the  most  democratic  governments  must  desire  to  succeed  in  their 
negotiations,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  democracy  should  turn  upon  itself 
and  deprive  its  agents  of  its  essential  means  of  defense.  Premature  dis- 
closures may  prevent  the  accomplishment  of  the  most  enlightened  aims,  giv- 
ing opportunity  for  the  insidious  efforts  of  selfish  interests  as  well  as  favoring 
opposition  abroad.  If  both  the  peoples  and  governments  concerned  were 
in  complete  accord,  there  would  be  no  need  for  negotiations,  and  when  they 
are  not  in  accord  and  are  endeavoring  to  reach  a  basis  of  agreement,  it  is  fatu- 
ous to  suppose  that  negotiations  can  be  conducted  without  prudent  reserva- 
tions on  each  side.  The  observations  that  are  sometimes  made  on  this  subject 
seem  to  presuppose  the  existence  of  some  dominant  external  authority  which 
can  impose  its  will,  whereas  the  peoples  concerned  are  themselves  sovereign, 
and  if  they  are  not  to  resort  to  force,  they  must  have  opportunity  to  reach  an 
agreement  mutually  satisfactory.  The  wholesome  pressure  of  world  opinion 
for  peaceful  solutions  is  quite  consistent  with  such  a  conduct  of  negotiations 
as  will  make  peaceful  solutions  possible. 

As  the  parties  to  the  negotiations  deal  with  each  other  upon  the  basis  of 
the  equality  of  States,  they  must  recognize  the  obligations  of  honorable  inter- 
course between  equals.  The  confidence  with  which  suggestions  are  received 
must  be  respected.  Each  must  be  free  to  make  tentative  suggestions  and 
withdraw  them.  There  must  be  opportunity  for  the  informal  discussion 
which  does  not  represent  the  final  stand  of  governments,  but  reflects  the 


• 


370  THE   AMERICAN   JOURNAL    OF   INTERNATIONAL    LAW 

proper  desire  to  ascertain  to  what  extent  there  is  accord  and  the  state  of  mind 
of  each  party  to  the  controversy.  It  is  an  essential  condition  of  intercourse 
that  representations  made  by  one  government  to  another  or  the  publication 
of  the  details  of  negotiations  must  rest  upon  the  express  or  implied  consent  of 
both  parties.  Any  government  that  refuses  to  recognize  this  basis  of  inter- 
course would  find  its  opportunities  for  suitable  adjustment  of  controversies 
seriously  impaired  and  its  influence  and  prestige  greatly  diminished. 

Moreover,  the  maintenance  of  international  good-will  during  negotiations 
is  of  vital  importance.  While  it  is  assumed  that  democracies  are  peace-lov- 
ing, it  cannot  be  forgotten  that  the  activities  of  democracies  frequently  make 
it  difficult  to  arrive  at  a  good  understanding.  The  press  in  each  country,  in 
large  measure,  is  likely  to  voice  extreme  demands  and  to  resist  accommoda- 
tions. Often  the  pseudo-patriotic  spirit  is  developed,  most  probably  in  the 
interest  of  local  politics,  and  efforts  are  made  to  prevent  settlements  by  in- 
flammatory appeals  to  passion  in  one  or  more  of  the  countries  concerned.  It 
is  most  desirable  that  such  endeavors  should  not  be  facilitated  by  information 
of  mere  proposals,  arguments  and  tentative  positions;  by  disclosures  which  at 
the  best,  pending  the  efforts  at  adjustment,  can  but  afford  gUmpses  of  the 
situation.  At  least  we  may  appreciate  the  fact  that  peoples  cannot  deal 
directly  with  peoples;  that  there  must  be  agents  of  negotiation;  and  that 
when  these  are  selected  as  wisely  as  may  be  practicable,  there  must  be  a  rea- 
sonable freedom  to  enable  them  to  secure  results.  They  cannot  adequately 
perform  their  task  under  a  fire  of  criticism  or  successfully  conduct  negotia- 
tions which  are  practically  taken  out  of  their  hands  and  directed  by  a 
clamorous  public. 

With  all  these  considerations,  it  remains  true  that  there  should  be  no 
secrecy  for  its  own  sake;  that  general  policies  should  be  made  clear;  that  par- 
ticular aims  should  be  appropriately  disclosed;  that  there  should  be  public 
announcement  of  all  proceedings  to  the  extent  consistent  with  the  essential 
requirements  of  negotiation;  and  that  nothing  should  ever  be  done  by  our 
■diplomatic  agents  which  so  far  as  its  actual  character  is  concerned  could  not 
he  publicly  proclaimed  and  justified  as  being  free  from  artifice  and  deception 
and  in  full  accord  with  American  principles. 

The  attitude  of  the  public  toward  foreign  relations  is  almost  as  important 
as  the  securing  of  adequate  information;  that  is,  there  should  be  a  suitable 
appreciation  of  the  objectives  of  diplomatic  effort.  There  is,  of  course,  the 
fundamental  matter  of  national  security,  and  the  instinct  of  self-preserva- 
tion causes  a  quick  response  to  any  appeal  on  this  score.  Indeed,  the  danger 
is  not  that  the  people  will  become  indifferent  to  the  essential  conditions  of 
their  security,  or  will  lack  information  as  to  any  policy  or  procedure  which 
actually  threatens  it,  but  that  the  endeavor  will  be  made  to  frustrate  peace- 
ful settlements  which  are  eminently  judicious,  and  which  really  promote  the 
safety  of  the  country,  upon  the  ground  that  in  some  indirect  way  they  will 
diminish  the  opportunities  for  protection.     We  have  had  recent  illustration 


SOME  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  CONDUCT  OF  OUR  FOREIGN  RELATIONS       371 

of  this.  The  need  for  enUghtenment,  in  this  aspect  of  the  matter,  is  with 
respect  to  what  really  makes  for  national  security. 

However,  in  emphasizing  the  importance  of  public  appreciation  of  the  aims 
of  our  diplomacy,  I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  there  is  any  great  lack  of 
understanding  or  of  support  of  our  historic  policies  or  of  the  economic  inter- 
ests, the  protection  of  which  has  become  more  and  more  the  object  of  diplo- 
matic effort.  It  is  rather  my  desire  to  emphasize  the  importance  of  peace 
as  the  object  of  diplomacy,  and  the  necessity  of  intelligent  opinion,  not  merely 
as  to  the  desirability  of  peace  as  an  abstract  conception,  but  with  respect 
to  the  conditions  that  are  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  peace.  With  these 
conditions  public  opinion  should  be  deeply  concerned.  Attention  has  been 
directed  to  formal  institutions,  to  international  agreements  relating  to  the 
maintenance  of  peace.  But  the  fundamental  fact  is  that,  however  well-de- 
vised, these  will  be  of  little  worth  in  the  absence  of  that  state  of  international 
feeling  which  will  promote  amicable  cooperation  and  permit  the  removal  of 
the  causes  of  discord. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  only  a  small  portion  of  the  controversial 
matters  of  great  consequence,  which  are  now  engaging  the  attention  of  for- 
eign offices,  admit  the  application  of  juridical  standards.  They  are  matters 
demanding  not  legal  decisions  but  adjustments  by  mutual  consent.  It  is  not 
simply  the  dispositions  of  old  controversies  that  are  needed,  but  understand- 
ings with  respect  to  new  situations  and  novel  enterprises.  In  this  world  of 
intimate  relations,  you  are  likely  to  have  either  hostility  or  cooperation. 
There  is  no  artificial  method  by  which  adjustments  can  be  reached  in  the 
absence  of  a  sincere  desire  for  accord,  and  the  cultivation  of  the  spirit  of 
mutual  friendliness  is  thus  the  primary  consideration.  Without  it,  even  the 
most  direct  contacts  and  the  flexible  arrangements  of  Conferences  will  be  of 
no  avail. 

The  nation  that  can  most  easily  settle  its  differences  and  promote  its  in- 
terests, the  nation  that  can  look  most  hopefully  for  a  recognition  of  its  claims, 
is  the  nation  that  by  its  reasonable  and  friendly  disposition,  its  poise  and 
sense  of  justice,  inspires  confidence  and  wins  esteem.  Here  we  touch  the 
point  where  the  authority  of  sound  public  opinion  is  most  necessary.  It 
must  frown  upon  the  constant  efforts  to  create  suspicion,  distrust  and  hatred. 
There  can  be  no  assurance  of  peace,  and  few  of  the  necessary  and  just  settle- 
ments which  make  for  peace,  in  a  world  of  hate.  It  should  be  recognized  that 
what  is  more  necessary  than  formulas  is  a  new  sense  of  civic  responsibility 
in  matters  of  international  concern.  The  chief  enemies  of  peace  are  those 
who  constantly  indulge  in  the  abuse  of  foreign  peoples  and  their  governments, 
who  asperse  their  motives  and  visit  them  with  ridicule  and  insult.  We  resent 
attacks  upon  American  character  and  motives  when  they  come  from  abroad 
and  we  should  remember  that  other  peoples  are  quite  as  sensitive  as  ourselves. 
Intercommunication  is  so  easy  that  domestic  discussions  of  foreign  affairs  are 
not  confined  within  the  three-mile  limit  but  are  immediately  published  abroad 


372  THE   AMERICAN   JOURNAL   OF   INTERNATIONAL    LAW 

as  indicative  not  of  the  sentiment  of  particular  individuals,  who  may  be  of 
little  relative  consequence,  but  as  indicating  the  sentiments  of  our  people. 
It  is  in  this  way  that  peoples  become  separated  by  a  mutual  distrust,  even 
while  their  responsible  agents  of  government  are  endeavoring  to  bring  about 
beneficial  settlements  and  mutual  confidence.  The  public-spirited  and  well- 
informed  American,  the  intelligent  patriot,  will  approach  all  discussions  of 
foreign  affairs  with  the  full  understanding  that  every  reckless  attack  upon 
foreign  peoples  and  governments  reacts  upon  his  country's  prestige,  impairs 
its  influence,  and  to  some  degree  threatens  its  peace.  The  principal  difficulty 
at  this  time  in  our  conduct  of  foreign  affairs  is  not  with  method,  or  organiza- 
tion, or  aims,  but  with  the  untruthful,  prejudiced  and  inflammatory  discus- 
sions in  which  some  of  our  citizens  and  certain  portions  of  the  press  permit 
themselves  to  indulge. 

If  there  is  to  be  less  reticence  in  diplomacy,  there  must  be,  if  not  a  greater 
reticence,  at  least  a  keener  sense  of  responsibility  in  the  discussion  of  inter- 
national questions.  Open  diplomacy  and  blatant  and  injudicious  utterances 
will  not  go  well  together.  The  corrective  can  only  be  found  in  that  state  of 
the  public  mind  which  will  unsparingly  condemn  and  ostracize  those  who  by 
their  base  imputations  imperil  our  friendly  relations  with  other  nations. 

An  intelligent  attitude  toward  foreign  affairs  will  also  take  account  of  the 
essential  instrumentalities  of  intercourse  and  of  the  importance  of  making 
these  as  efficient  as  possible.  The  many  millions  of  our  people  cannot  con- 
duct their  foreign  relations,  and  the  inescapable  conditions  to  which  I  have 
adverted  make  it  necessary  that  our  people  should  have  at  their  command 
the  most  expert  diplomatic  organization.  I  shall  not  at  this  time  review,  as 
I  have  had  the  privilege  of  doing  recently,  the  requirements  of  our  diplomatic 
and  consular  service.  I  merely  wish  again  to  emphasize  the  point  that  intel- 
ligent opinion  will  demand  that  there  should  be  an  opportunity  for  career  in 
this  service  which  will  draw  to  it  as  many  as  may  be  needed  of  the  best  of  the 
educated  young  manhood  of  the  country.  This  is  not  in  the  interest  of  the 
evelopment  of  a  caste ;  it  is  in  the  interest  of  the  American  people  and  public 
opinion  should  demand  it. 

It  is  apparent  that  this  attitude  of  the  public  mind,  this  instructed  public 
opinion,  cannot  be  had  save  as  it  is  produced  by  the  conscious  endeavor  and 
constant  influence  of  men  and  women  who  have  had  the  special  advantages 
of  higher  education.  It  is  the  interaction  of  the  influences  of  the  university 
on  the  one  hand  and  of  the  many  schools  of  experience  on  the  other,  that 
produces  that  clear,  practical  and  intelligent  view  of  affairs  which  we  call  the 
dominant  American  opinion.  With  respect  to  matters  the  importance  of 
which  is  not  immediately  or  generally  perceived,  where  special  study  and 
instruction  are  needed,  it  is  especially  the  example  and  influence  of  those  who 
have  had  the  advantage  of  college  or  university  training  that  is  imperatively 
needed. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  dwell  upon  ideals  in  American  education  further 


SOME  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  CONDUCT  OF  OUR  FOREIGN  RELATIONS   373 

than  to  say  that  they  may  be  open  to  the  criticism  of  being  too  individuaHs- 
tic.  It  goes  without  saying  that  a  young  American  should  be  able  to  make 
a  living  and  should  have  every  opportunity  for  vocational  and  technical 
training.  There  is  no  question,  of  course,  but  that  it  is  this  training  of  the 
individual  which  makes  for  the  enrichment  of  society.  And  I  am  one  of 
those  who  believe  that  the  cultivation  of  the  spirit,  that  one  may  have  life 
more  abundantly,  is  quite  as  important  as  the  equipment  which  will  enable 
one  to  secure  the  primary  necessities  of  food  and  shelter  or  the  means  of  a 
comfortable  existence. 

But  along  with  the  appropriate  consideration  of  individual  needs,  there 
should  go  a  more  definite  appreciation  of  the  necessity  of  meeting  the  de- 
mands of  training  for  citizenship.  This  implies  adequate  knowledge  of  our 
institutions,  of  their  development  and  actual  working.  It  means  more  than 
this  in  a  world  of  new  intimacies  and  perplexities.  It  means  adequate  knowl- 
edge of  other  peoples,  and  for  this  purpose  there  is  nothing  to  take  the  place 
of  the  humanities,  of  the  study  of  literature  and  history.  When  I  speak  of 
the  study  of  history,  I  do  not  mean  a  superficial  review,  but  the  earnest  en- 
deavor to  understand  the  life  of  peoples,  their  problems  and  aspirations. 
Nor  is  it  simply  or  chiefly  the  history  of  a  distant  past  that  it  is  now  most 
important  to  know.  It  is  recent  history  that  is  of  first  importance,  with  suffi- 
cient acquaintance  with  the  past  to  understand  the  happenings  and  the  de- 
velopments which  have  taken  place  in  our  own  time.  In  our  many  years  of 
schooling  how  difficult  it  is  to  give  to  our  young  men  and  women  the  knowl- 
edge that  is  worth  while,  which  through  a  just  and  clear  discernment  will 
properly  relate  them  to  the  duties  and  opportunities  of  their  generation! 

There  are  those  who  view  the  dislocations  caused  by  the  war,  the  present 
widespread  impoverishment,  the  assaults  and  too  frequent  triumphs  of 
unreason,  the  controversies  over  superficialities  and  the  ignoring  of  the  causes 
of  distress  and  instability,  with  a  feeling  of  hopelessness.  But  this  is  not  the 
end  of  the  world;  rather  it  is  the  beginning  of  a  new  era,  a  formative  period 
when  it  is  the  highest  privilege  to  live  and  perform  one's  part.  We  need 
young  men  and  women  who  are  profound  students  of  these  developments, 
who  are  ready  not  only  to  grapple  with  the  problems  of  our  domestic  life  but 
who  understand  the  origin  and  course  of  international  difficulties  and  con- 
troversies and  thus  are  able  to  take  an  intelligent  and  helpful  part  in  forming 
a  sound  public  opinion  which  will  control  America's  conduct  of  foreign  affairs. 
Above  all  we  need  the  spirit  of  reasonableness  which  men  and  women  of 
good  sense  and  culture  may  bring  to  public  discussion, — that  calm  judgment 
which  proceeds  from  wide  knowledge  and  keen  insight. 

Power  and  opportunity  are  yours.  They  are  not  confided  to  impersonal 
institutions.  What  will  you  do  with  them?  Our  ultimate  security  and  the 
assurance  of  our  progress  will  not  be  found  in  constitutions  or  statutes  or 
treaties  or  conferences,  important  as  these  may  be,  but  in  the  self-respect 
that  will  not  permit  abasement;  in  the  national  pride  and  just  self-interest 


374  THE   AMERICAN   JOURNAL    OF   INTERNATIONAL   LAW 

that  will  not  tolerate  interference  with  independence ;  in  the  spirit  of  helpful- 
ness which  seeks  not  alliances  but  honorable  cooperation;  in  the  love  of  jus- 
tice which  will  not  permit  abuse  of  power  and  which  scorns  to  profit  by  unjust 
accusation;  in  the  insistence  upon  the  processes  of  reason  by  which  alone  we 
can  avoid  the  mistakes  of  prejudice;  in  the  detestation  of  the  demagogue  and 
all  his  works,  the  most  dangerous  enemy  of  the  republic ;  and  in  the  sympathy 
with  the  weak  and  oppressed  and  in  the  dominant  sentiment  of  human 
brotherhood  through  which  we  shall  be  able  to  reconcile  our  national  aspira- 
tions with  the  full  performance  of  our  duty  to  humanity. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT.                            1 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

3APR^59CB 

gccy**/^^  <  I 

iVfAir     3  1959 

REC'D  UD 

APR  24  1959 

i 

^fsiix^.'B-         .js^2B'^"'" 

x3Sj^.o.-° 


,-««^ 


s^>' 


\ 


